Fun in the Workplace and Employee Substance Use: A Double-Edged Sword?

Abstract

While fun in the workplace has been demonstrated to favorably influence a variety of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in previous research (Michel et al., 2019), the present study demonstrates that fun bears a complex relationship with employee alcohol and marijuana use. With a sample of 378 individuals employed in the hospitality and retail industries, manager support for fun and fun activities were negatively related to after-work employee substance use through subjective stress. In addition, both aspects of fun in the workplace were positively related to substance use through coworker socializing. In this light, fun in the workplace may be a double-edged sword in the context of human resource management. These findings are discussed, along with opportunities for future research.

Keywords

fun in the workplace alcohol use marijuana use

Fun in the workplace has been embraced by a wide variety of companies for well over a quarter of a century to enhance employee engagement and organizational success. Notable forerunners of the modern fun in the workplace movement include Southwest Airlines with its culture of fun and humor (Milliman et al., 1999; Sunoo, 1995), Pike Place Fish Market renowned for its playful FISH! Philosophy to management and leadership (Lundin et al., 2002), and Zappos with core values embracing “fun and little weirdness” (Riordan, 2013). Fun continues to be an important and strategic human resource management element in many of today’s top organizations, such as Adobe, AOL, Intel, Patagonia, and Yahoo! (Bortz, n.d.). These examples, among others (Murphy, n.d.), signal that fun is not a passing management fad.

The body of scholarly research on fun in the workplace has validated popular beliefs that fun has value for employees and organizations (Michel et al., 2019). Initially, fun attracts applicants to organizations in the recruiting process (Tews et al., 2012). Once on the job, fun contributes to more favorable employee attitudes, such as increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, engagement, and job embeddedness (Chan & Mak, 2016; Choi et al., 2013; Fluegge, 2008; Karl et al., 2007, 2008; McDowell, 2004; Peluchette & Karl, 2005; Tews et al., 2013, 2015). In addition, fun promotes learning (Tews et al., 2017) and better job performance (Fluegge, 2008; Tews et al., 2013). Moreover, fun enhances retention and reduces turnover (Tews et al., 2013, 2014). Despite some caveats, the extant body of research highlights that fun may be helpful across multiple aspects of the HRM system.

Fun in the workplace may also influence employee substance use. However, the relationship between fun in the workplace may not be straightforward. In fact, fun may be a double-edged sword. On one hand, fun may reduce stress and curb substance use. On the other hand, fun may promote socializing among employees and increase substance use. Research on fun in the workplace and employee substance use has not been conducted before, and research is warranted that tests these dual paths through which fun may operate. Examining these relationships is the goal of the present study with a focus on alcohol and marijuana, two of the most popular drugs for recreational consumption in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021, June 8; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022, June 6).

The workplace today is increasingly stressful (Ahmad, 2022), and substance use has long been documented as a way for many individuals to cope with work-related stress (Bray et al., 1999; Cooper et al., 1990). Although alcohol and marijuana use may be relatively harm-free in moderation, such consumption may nonetheless be detrimental. In the context of the workplace, research generally points to negative effects. For example, employees who consume marijuana or alcohol have been shown to have an increased risk of injury and accidents, as well as an increased likelihood of involuntary turnover (Goldsmith et al., 2015; Martin et al., 1994; Sullivan et al., 2019). Moreover, research has shown that employees who consume marijuana have impaired memory and cognitive recognition (Martin et al., 1994). Given the challenges associated with employee marijuana and alcohol use, value can be gained by identifying features of the work environment that facilitate and curb such use.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

In their review of the fun in the workplace literature, Michel et al. (2019) characterize fun in the workplace as features or characteristics of the work environment of a social, playful, and humorous nature that have the potential to enhance positive feelings of enjoyment, amusement, and lighthearted pleasure. Fun in the workplace is multidimensional, and the present study will focus on three dimensions of fun: fun activities, manager support for fun, and coworker socializing. Fun activities relate to group social activities for employees inside or outside the formal workplace, during regular work hours, or beyond. The present research will hone in on mainstream fun activities that are generally perceived favorably, such as parties to celebrate holidays and public celebrations of personal milestones (Ford et al., 2003; Karl et al., 2005). In turn, manager support for fun reflects the extent to which managers encourage and afford individuals the opportunity to have fun in the workplace. Whereas fun activities are more formal and discrete experiences, manager support for fun is more informal and permeates the workplace more generally. Finally, coworker socializing is the degree to which employees informally socialize, laugh, or otherwise interact in a friendly and fun manner (Michel et al., 2019). Previous research has demonstrated that these dimensions of fun are empirically distinct and that they exhibit different relationships with various workplace outcomes (e.g., Tews et al., 2014; Tews et al., 2015).

The conceptual model for the present study is presented visually in Figure 1. The dependent variables in the model are after-work employee alcohol and marijuana use, which reflects whether employees engage in such substance use within a few hours of finishing work on a given day (Frone, 2008). While some previous research has addressed substance use in general without reference to timing, Frone (2008) has argued that the likelihood of detecting relationships increases when substance use is examined in a temporal context. Regarding antecedents, fun activities and manager support for fun are conceptualized as distal predictors of employee alcohol and marijuana use because they are features of the work environment that are largely under the organization’s control. Coworker socializing may be influenced by fun activities and manager support for the fun, and it is conceptualized as a proximal predictor and a mediator in the model. Subjective stress, which refers to individuals’ perceived level of stress experienced in the workplace (Motowidlo et al., 1986), is similarly conceptualized as a proximal predictor and mediator. The following paragraphs provide the background and theoretical rationale for the proposed relationships.

One common variable that has been used to explain employee substance use is stress (de Fatima Fernandes & da Silva Gherardi-Donato, 2017). As discussed by Frone (2008), research on employee substance use and stress has often been framed in the context of tension reduction. The tension-reduction hypothesis has two primary propositions (Conger et al., 1956). One, substance use will reduce the strain associated with exposure to stressors. Two, exposure to stressors will lead to increased substance use in order to mitigate the experience of tension and strain. In both ways, individuals engage in substance use to alleviate the emotional pain that stems from stressors in their environment (Hogan et al., 2003).

A number of studies have demonstrated the link between a variety of workplace stressors and substance use, in support of the tension-reduction hypothesis. For example, Bray et al. (1999) found that different stressors were associated with substance use among men versus women in the military. Biron et al. (2011) also demonstrated a heightened rate of substance use among those perceiving greater exposure to job hazards with a sample of blue-collar employees. As a final example, Frone (2008) provided evidence that work overload was significantly related to alcohol use during and after the workday and that job insecurity was significantly related to alcohol use during the workday with a national sample of U.S. workers. However, not all research has found a relationship between stress and substance use (e.g., Frone, 2003; Weisner et al., 2005), highlighting a need for future research in this area.

Fun activities and manager support for fun may curb employee substance because they may serve as resources to reduce the stress employees experience through work. In the context of the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), resources are essential for alleviating the stress that individuals might experience on the job. Specifically, resources reflect aspects of the job that are instrumental in achieving performance goals, reducing job demands and their associated costs, or promoting personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). While resources may be physical, they can also be social and psychological, such as fun in the workplace. Previous research has found that fun can represent a positive job resource for employees because it enhances social relationships that provide social support (Tews et al., 2013) and buffers job demands (Georganta & Montgomery, 2016). For example, Tews et al. (2013) found that fun could function as a job resource that decreased turnover and enhanced job performance through affective commitment. Similarly, Georganta and Montgomery (2022) demonstrated that fun was a job resource that could attenuate chronic social stressors and the need for recovery after work.

Fun activities and manager support for fun may reduce employee stress and thus curb substance use in two key respects. In one respect, fun can reduce stress because fun can facilitate the experience of positive affect. Fun in the workplace is intended to produce feelings of enjoyment and pleasure among employees, whether it be through a formal activity or more informal means. Although not all fun is equal and individuals may interpret fun differently (Michel et al., 2019), fun has been found to lead to greater positive affect (Fluegge, 2008). When individuals experience positive affect with greater frequency, they are more resilient and better able to cope with potentially stressful situations (e.g., Ong et al., 2006; Steptoe et al., 2008; Tugade et al., 2004). For example, greater positive affect curbs individuals’ reactivity to stressors (Fredrickson et al., 2000; Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998) and facilitates problem solving on novel tasks (Isen et al., 1987). In a related respect, fun can reduce stress because fun involves taking time off task and can serve as an individual recovery mechanism. That is, fun allows employees to take a break from their routines and responsibilities and then recharge. In support of these arguments, Karl and Peluchette (2006) have demonstrated that fun leads to lower levels of emotional exhaustion. When there is fun in the workplace, work is not merely about task accomplishment, but also about employee wellbeing.

Hypothesis 1a

Fun activities will be negatively related to employee after-work substance use through subjective stress.

Hypothesis 1b

Manager support for fun will be negatively related to employee after-work substance use through subjective stress.

While fun activities and manager support for fun may be related to lower levels of substance use by reducing stress, fun activities may be related to higher levels of substance use through coworker socializing. It is argued that fun activities and manager support for fun will be positively related to coworker socializing because fun is largely about bringing employees together to bond, whether formally or more organically. When employees are more tightly bonded, they are more likely to engage in behaviors in the social realm, such as substance use. In fact, previous research has demonstrated that socializing is a significant predictor of substance use within and outside the context of the workplace (Hoeben et al., 2016; Hollinger, 2018; Meldrum & Clark, 2015).

In workplace settings, coworker socializing could be related to employee substance use because of norms around substance use and increased availability. The norms perspective of substance use posits that substance use will be greater when the environment is permissive of such use. For example, Bacharach et al. (2002) found that permissive norms were the strongest predictor of employee alcohol use with a sample of blue-collar employees. In addition, Liu et al. (2015) demonstrated that alcohol use norms were significantly associated with the performance drinking motives of newcomers. In the context of the present study, we argue that norms around coworker socializing more generally will influence substance use. People often consume alcohol and marijuana in group settings, and such substances are commonly used as social lubricants in group contexts (Hathaway, 1997; Monahan & Lannutti, 2000). Although discussed in the context of adolescents, Meldrum and Clark (2015) contended that time spent socializing with peers may increase substance use because socializing with peers may make ‘deviant’ acts more socially rewarding. Furthermore, when there is greater socializing among employees, there may be greater availability of alcohol and marijuana for consumption. Individuals may socialize in settings after work where alcohol and marijuana may be readily available or where sharing is the norm (e.g., bar, restaurant, or someone’s house). When there is greater coworker socializing, employees may have greater access to alcohol and marijuana than they might otherwise have, which could translate into increased consumption. According to Hollinger (2018), individuals who socialize outside of work with their fellow employees at least monthly are almost twice as likely to engage in substance use.

Returning to fun activities and manager support for fun, they may be positively related to employee substance because they likely influence coworker socializing. While employees may socialize on their own, fun activities and manager support for fun provide the architecture and freedom to do so. Fun activities provide a structured vehicle to bring employees together; whereas manager support for fun provides an informal means to do so by creating a more relaxed and playful work environment. In these cases, fun activities and manager support for fun may provide a stimulus for increased coworker socializing. In support of the proposition that fun facilitates socializing, previous research has found significant relationships between fun activities and manager support for fun and coworker socializing in research focused on employee retention (Tews et al., 2014). Therefore, given that fun activities and manager support for fun may be positively related to coworker socializing and that coworker socializing may be positively related to employee substance use, fun activities and manager support for fun are hypothesized to be positively related to employee substance use.

Hypothesis 2a

Fun activities will be positively related to employee after-work substance use through coworker socializing.

Hypothesis 2b

Manager support for fun will be positively related to employee after-work substance use through coworker socializing.

Method

Sample and Procedure

A two-wave survey was developed to examine employee perceptions of fun at work, subjective stress, and substance use by working individuals recruited through Prolific. Prolific is an online crowdsourcing data collection platform that allows researchers access to a more extensive and demographically diverse participant pool compared to traditional student samples (Palan & Schitter, 2018). Currently, more than 130,000 workers have been recruited and screened by the Prolific platform (Douglas et al., 2023). Peer et al. (2021) suggested that the data quality of Prolific can be higher than that of the data collected from other platforms, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk. Researchers can target participants with specific attributes by adding a variety of screeners (e.g., employment status, industry, or demographics) to the data collection query. Regarding the procedure, researchers post a survey link, their desired sample size, and incentives on the Prolific platform. Then participants who meet the inclusion criteria can elect to complete the survey voluntarily and anonymously. With respect to the present study, data were collected at two points in time with a time lag of 1 week. Upon accessing the surveys, a consent form was presented to potential participants, whereby individuals needed to click “I agree” to continue. At time 1, data on fun activities, manager support for fun, coworker socializing, subjective stress, and control variables were collected. At time 2, data were collected on alcohol and marijuana use. The research protocol herein was screened and approved by the Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board.

This study focused on individuals employed in the retail and hospitality industries. At the time of this study, approximately 6300 of such individuals were available to participate in the UK and U.S. through Prolific. These industries were targeted given the social nature of such work, along with the relatively high incidences of substance use among employees (Bush & Lapari, 2015, April 16). Beyond the industry context, the primary criterion for inclusion was being employed at least 20 hours per week. A total of 455 participants completed the time 1 survey with an incentive of $1.50. The time 2 survey was distributed to these 455 participants 1 week after they completed the time 1 survey with an incentive of $2.00. A total of 387 participants completed the time 2 survey (response rate = 85%). The final sample was 63% female, 87% Caucasian, and 31.60 years of age, on average (SD = 10.14). The average organizational tenure was 5.71 years (SD 5.52), and 42% percent of the sample was employed in a managerial or supervisory role. The sample was comprised predominantly of retail (53%), food service (20%), and accommodations (7%) employees.

Primary Measures

Alcohol and marijuana use

After-work alcohol and marijuana use were each measured with single-item measures based on Frone (2008). Specifically, the respondents were asked to indicate their frequency of after-work alcohol and marijuana use over the past 6 months (i.e., consumption within 2 hours of leaving) on a six-point scale with anchors ranging from 0) 0–5) to 6–7 days per week.

Fun in the workplace

The three dimensions of fun in the workplace—fun activities, manager support for fun, and coworker socializing—were assessed with measures based on Tews et al. (2014). Three items were used to measure fun activities. A sample item includes: There are formal activities for employees to socialize and have fun together. Four items were used to measure manager support for fun. A sample item includes: Our managers allow employees to have fun on the job. Six items were used to measure coworker socializing. A sample item includes: My coworkers and I socialize outside of work. The respondents were provided a five-point scale to answer the items with anchors ranging from 1) strongly disagree to 5) strongly agree. The internal consistency reliability estimates (α) for the fun activities, manager support for fun, and coworker socializing measures were 0.86, 0.91, and 0.87, respectively.

Subjective stress

Two items were used to measure subjective stress from Motowidlo et al. (1986). A sample item includes: I feel a great deal of stress because of my current job situation. The respondents were provided a five-point scale with anchors ranging from 1) strongly disagree to 5) strongly agree. The internal consistency reliability estimate (α) for the scale was 0.93.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the convergence and discriminant validity of the three fun and the workplace and subjective stress measures. Specifically, a four-factor model was tested where items were loaded onto their respective latent constructs. The model fit indices showed an acceptable model fi [χ² = 241.78, df = 93, p < .01, comparative fit index (CFI) = .967, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .96, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .05] (Kline, 2015). The standardized factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) of each latent factor are shown in Table 1. The AVE scores of all factors were over .50, suggesting good convergence validity (Kline, 2015). In addition, the square roots of the AVE scores were larger than the correlation coefficients between any two factors, which suggested good discriminant validity (Kline, 2015).

Table 1.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

Scale	Item	Loading	AVE
Fun activities			.64
Item 1	There are formal activities for employees to socialize and have fun together	.79^**
Item 2	There are parties for employees to celebrate significant work achievements and personal milestones	.89^**
Item 3	There are events for employees during holidays and other special times	.71^**
Manager support for fun			.72
Item 1	Our managers encourage us to have fun on the job	.86^**
Item 2	Our managers try to make work fun	.86^**
Item 3	Our managers allow employees to have fun on the job	.93^**
Item 4	Our managers joke around with us	.72^**
Coworker socializing			.61
Item 1	My coworkers and I socialize at work	.78^**
Item 2	My coworkers and I socialize outside of work	.69^**
Item 3	My coworkers and I regard each other as friends	.77^**
Item 4	My coworkers and I share stories with each other	.79^**
Item 5	My coworkers and I joke around with each other	.86^**
Stress			.87
Item 1	I feel a great deal of stress because of my job	.93^**
Item 2	Very stressful things happen to me because of my current job situation	.94^**

Note. n = 378. Significance levels reflect two-tailed tests. *p < .05 **p < .01.

Control Variables

Several control variables were measured to be included in the analyses to account for individual differences in employee substance use. These variables include demographic characteristics and four of the Big Five personality dimensions. Age and gender were included because previous studies have found that they were related to substance use, such that younger individuals and males use substances more frequently (Frone, 2003, 2008). Tenure was included because previous studies have found that tenure and substance use are negatively related (Baling & Frone, 2004). In addition, Kotov et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis demonstrated the predictive value of personality dimensions with substance use with four Big Five personality dimensions, including conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability. More specifically, Kotov et al. (2010) showed that emotional instability (i.e., neuroticism) was positively related to alcohol and drug use, while conscientiousness and agreeableness were negatively related to alcohol and drug use. The effect of extraversion on drug use was negative, but non-significant for alcohol use. These four dimensions of the Big Five were measured with multi-item scales from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006).

Analytic Strategy

To test the hypotheses, a multiple regression framework was utilized. Model 1 examined the main effects of fun activities and manager support for fun on subjective stress after controlling for individual differences. Model 2 examined the direct effects of fun activities and manager support for fun on coworker socializing after including the same control variables. Model 3 tested the effects of the two mediators on after-work alcohol use after controlling for fun activities and manager support for fun. Finally, Model 4 examined the effects of two mediators on after-work marijuana use after controlling for the two independent variables. A 5000-time bootstrap resampling method was used to test the indirect effects of fun activities and manager support for fun on after-work alcohol and marijuana use through the effects of subjective stress and coworker socializing (Hayes, 2017).

Results

Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics and correlations among the primary study variables. Before conducting the regression analyses, normality and homoscedasticity tests were performed to examine whether the data met the assumptions for regression analysis. The normality was tested by calculating the skewness and kurtosis of each construct. Abu-Bader (2011) suggested that a construct is suitable for regression if the ratios of its skewness and kurtosis and their standard error are within 4. The results showed that the skewness ratio for each construct was between .06 and 3.48, and the kurtosis ratio for each construct was between 3.11 and 3.76, indicating an acceptable level of normality. In addition, the scatterplot of residual variance of each construct (Abu-Bader, 2011) indicated that the standard errors of variables are normally distributed for each level of the independent variable. Table 3 presents the regression results that serve as the basis for examining the degree of support for the hypothesized relationships.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Fun activities	2.84	1.12	–
2. Manager support for fun	3.14	1.10	.55**	–
3. Coworker socializing	3.60	.92	.35**	.36**	–
4. Subjective stress	2.74	1.15	−0.06*	−0.35**	−0.20**	–
5. Alcohol use	1.88	1.52	.09*	−0.03	.17**	.11*	–
6. Marijuana use	1.65	1.85	.10*	−0.01	.19**	.13**	.17**	–

Note. n = 378. Significance levels reflect one-tailed tests. *p < .05 **p < .01.

Table 3.

Regression Results for Hypothesized Relationships.

Predictors	Subjective stress		Coworker socializing		Alcohol use		Marijuana use
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Intercept	4.74**	.46	2.41**	.38	.76**	.24	.08	.35
Control variable
Age	.01	.01	.01	.01	.02*	.01	.06	.14
Gender	.12	.11	−.07	.10	.21	.14	.11	.20
Tenure	−.01	.01	.01	.01	.03*	.02	−.02	.02
Conscientiousness	−.11		.04	.07	−.25**	.10	−.19*	.09
Agreeableness	−.17*	.07	.27**	.08	−.05	.11	.06	.14
Extraversion	.10	.06	.23**	.05	.01	.08	−.17	.11
Emotional stability	.22**	.06	.03	.06	−.16*	.08	−.24**	.11
Main effects
Fun activities	−.09*	.05	.22**	.05	.19**	.06	.27**	.09
Manager support for fun	−.36**	.05	.13**	.05	.05	.07	.03	.11
Stress					.44**	.07	.37**	.10
Coworker socializing					.57**	.08	.35**	.11
R ²	.20**		.18**		.34**		.14**

Note. n = 378. SE: standard error. Significance levels reflect one-tailed tests. *p < .05 **p < .01. Gender was dummy coded: 0 =

female 1 = male.

Hypothesis 1a

which proposed that fun activities would be negatively related to employee substance use through subjective stress, was supported. Model 1 showed that the relationship between fun activities and subjective stress was negative and significant (b = -.09, p < .05). Furthermore, the results of bootstrap resampling demonstrated that the indirect associations between fun activities and after-work alcohol use (estimate = -.04, p < .05; CI = [-.07, -.01]) and after-work marijuana use (estimate = -.02, p < .05; CI = [-.04, -.01]) via subjective stress were significant and negative.

Hypothesis 1b

which proposed that manager support for fun would be negatively related to employee substance use through subjective stress, was supported. As shown in Model 1, manager support for fun had a significant negative relationship with subjective stress (b = -.36, p < .01). In addition, the relationships between subjective stress and after-work alcohol use (b = .44, p < .01) and marijuana use (b = .37, p < .01) were both significant and positive, as shown in Models 3 and 4. The bootstrap results indicated that the indirect associations between fun activities and after-work alcohol use (estimate = -.11, p < .01; CI = [-.14, -.09]) and after-work marijuana use (estimate = -.08, p < .01; CI = [-.11, -.05]) via subjective stress were significant and negative.

Hypothesis 2a

which proposed that fun activities would be positively related to employee substance use through coworker socializing, was supported. Model 2 indicated that fun activities had a significant positive relationship with coworker socializing (b = .22, p < .01). In addition, the relationships between coworker socializing and after-work alcohol use (b = .57, p < .01) and marijuana use (b = .35, p < .01) were both significant and positive in Models 3 and 4. The bootstrap results indicated that the indirect associations between fun activities and after-work alcohol use (estimate = .13, p < .01; CI = [.09, .17]) and after-work marijuana use (estimate = .08, p < .01; CI = [.05, .11]) via coworker socializing were both significant and positive.

Hypothesis 2b

which proposed that manager support for fun would be positively related to employee substance use through coworker socializing, was supported. As shown in Model 2, the relationship between manager support for fun and coworker socializing was significant and positive (b = .13, p < .01). The results of bootstrap resampling showed that manager support for fun had significant and positive associations with after-work alcohol use (estimate = .07, p < .01; CI = [.03, .11]) and marijuana use (estimate = .04, p < .01; CI = [.02, .07]) through coworker socializing.

Discussion

Since the turn of the century, scholarly research has demonstrated that fun in the workplace has the potential to yield positive benefits for individuals and organizations (Michel et al., 2019). Notwithstanding the validity of such findings, other research has pointed to the potential challenges of fun, such as increased incidents of unwanted sexual attention (Tews et al., 2019). The present research further highlights nuances and challenges associated with fun, particularly regarding employee substance use. While fun may, in general, help promote healthy work environments, the present study underscores potential caveats. As such, fun in the workplace may be a double-edged sword in the context of human resource management.

On one hand, with respect to fun, it was demonstrated that both manager support for fun and fun activities were negatively related to employee substance use through perceived subjective stress. These results support the tension-reduction hypothesis of substance use (Conger et al., 1956; Hogan et al., 2003), which has not always been supported in the extant body of literature (e.g., Frone, 2003; Weisner et al., 2005). Drawing on the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), it was argued that fun might reduce stress and subsequent alcohol and marijuana use by increasing positive affect and serving as an individual recovery mechanism where individuals can take time off task and recharge. In this light, by recognizing the role of fun in mitigating stress and promoting employee well-being, organizations may cultivate an environment that minimizes substance use among their workforce. These findings are noteworthy, given that some employees may be resistant to fun in the workplace (Fleming, 2005; Fleming & Sturdy, 2009).

While this research found that fun in the workplace is negatively related to employee substance use through subjective stress, it also found that fun is positively related to substance use. Specifically, it was found that both fun activities and manager support for fun were positively related to after-work employee substance use through coworker socializing. This finding reinforces two key points: (1) fun activities and manager support for fun may promote bonding and social connections among employees, and (2) post-shift alcohol and marijuana use are workplace social phenomena, at least to a degree. One useful extension of the present study would be to examine post-shift alcohol and marijuana use that occurs with one’s coworkers compared to that which occurs alone or with individuals not affiliated with the workplace.

Given the applied nature of fun in the workplace, practitioners should recognize that fun bears a complex relationship with employee alcohol and marijuana use. On the whole, fun has been demonstrated to be beneficial with respect to a wide variety of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (see Michel et al., 2019). The question arises as to how to achieve the benefits of fun while minimizing the risk of problematic employee substance use. One viable strategy might be supplementing a fun work climate with one that also fosters employee health and wellbeing. For example, organizations could offer health and wellness training that focuses on the risks associated with excessive substance use, sponsor fun activities that do not involve alcohol, and provide access to employee assistance programs for employees who believe their substance use is problematic.

The findings from this study should be interpreted in the context of four primary limitations. One, the data on the independent variables and mediators were collected at the same point in time. On this front, future research should incorporate temporal distance in data collection efforts to further validate cause-and-effect relationships. Two, the sample for this research was primarily comprised of individuals employed in the retail and hospitality industries. While this sampling frame was intentional, it may nonetheless represent a boundary condition. Further research would thus be valuable with samples of individuals in different industries and contexts to help validate the generalizability of the findings herein. Three, this research focused on the frequency of alcohol and marijuana consumption in general, without reference to quantity. As such, future research would be worthwhile that examines the impact of fun on binge or excessive consumption with respect to alcohol and marijuana. Finally, this research measured general perceptions of fun in the workplace, rather than the frequency of fun. Although our measurement was based on previous research (Tews et al., 2014), future research should assess whether a measurement of the frequency of fun has greater predictive utility over general perceptions of its presence in the workplace.

Beyond the opportunities discussed above, several avenues for future research are worth pursuing. One opportunity is examining factors that can moderate the coworker socializing—substance use relationship. In addition to focusing on organizational characteristics (e.g., climate focused on employee health and wellbeing), research that addresses individual differences (e.g., conscientiousness and emotional stability) as moderators would be valuable. Another opportunity for future research is further examining the on-the-job impact of employee marijuana use. With the increase of marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes, research would be fruitful that addresses when such use has a detrimental impact on job performance and when it might be beneficial. A final opportunity for future research is using an experience sampling methodology (Gabriel et al., 2019) to examine the antecedents of employee substance use. Such an approach could help unearth what specific events drive employees to consume alcohol and marijuana before, during, or after work.

Employee substance use represents a challenge for employers, and the present study signals that fun in the workplace may be a double-edged sword. Fundamentally, this research highlights some of the complexities inherent to fun in the workplace as a human resource management strategy to enhance employee wellbeing. While not intended to be a definitive test, it is hoped that the results from the present study shed light on the fun-substance use relationship and will stimulate future research in this needed area of inquiry.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Michael J. Tews

Sydney T. Pons

Author Biographies

Michael J. Tews, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School of Hospitality Management at Pennsylvania State University. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University and his master’s from the London School of Economics. In addition to his work on employee substance use, his research addresses issues relating to employee selection, training and development, and retention in hospitality and service contexts.

Heyao Yu, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Hospitality Management at Pennsylvania State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Houston. His research focuses on organizational training and design, employee well-being, human resource management, and crisis management with an emphasis on the foodservice industry.

Sydney Taylor Pons is a Ph.D. Candidate in the School of Hospitality Management at Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on the inclusion of stigmatized identities in the workplace. Currently, Sydney's focal area of research revolves around second-chance employment and justice-impacted employees.

References

Abu-Bader

S. H.

(2011). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods for social science research with a complete SPSS guide. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.

Ahmad

A. F.

(2022). The influence of interpersonal conflict, job stress, and work life balance on employee turnover intention. International Journal of Humanities and Education Development, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.22161/4.2.1

Bakker

A.B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Barling

Frone

M. R.

(Eds.). (2004). The psychology of workplace safety. American Psychological Association.

Biron

Bamberger

P. A.

Noyman

(2011). Work-related risk factors and employee substance use: Insights from a sample of Israeli blue-collar workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022708

Bortz

(n.d.). 5 companies with crazy fun perks. Monster. https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/5-companies-with-crazy-fun-perks-0916

Bray

R. M.

Fairbank

J. A.

Marsden

M. E.

(1999). Stress and substance use among military women and men. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1081/ada-100101858

Bush

D. M.

Lapari

R. N.

(2015, April 16). Substance use and substance use disorder by industry. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_1959/ShortReport-1959.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, June 8). Marijuana and public health: Data and statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, June 6). Excessive alcohol use. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/alcohol.htm

11.

Chan

S. C.

Mak

W. M.

(2016). Have you experienced fun in the workplace? An empirical study of workplace fun, trust-in-management and job satisfaction. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 7(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-03-2016-0002

12.

Choi

Y.G.

Kwon

Kim

(2013). Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311311044

13.

Conger

J. J.

(1956). II. Reinforcement theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 17(2), 296–305.

14.

de Fatima Fernandes

M. N.

da Silva Gherardi-Donato

E. C.

(2017). Is it workplace stress a trigger for alcohol and drug abuse? Open Journal of Nursing, 7(03), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2017.73034

15.

Douglas

B. D.

Ewell

P. J.

Brauer

(2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.Plos one, 18(3), e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720

16.

Fleming

(2005). Metaphors of resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318905276559

17.

Fleming

Sturdy

(2009). “Just be yourself!”: Towards neo‐normative control in organisations? Employee relations, 3(6), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450910991730

18.

Fluegge

E. R.

(2008). Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work and its effects on job performance. Gainesville, FL: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.

19.

Ford

R. C.

McLaughlin

F. S.

Newstrom

J. W.

(2003). Questions and answers about fun at work. Human Resource Planning, 26(4), 18–33.

20.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Levenson

R. W.

(1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999398379718

21.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Mancuso

R. A.

Branigan

Tugade

M. M.

(2000). The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010796329158

22.

Frone

M. R.

(2003). Predictors of overall and on-the-job substance use among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.1.39

23.

Frone

M. R.

(2008). Are work stressors related to employee substance use? The importance of temporal context assessments of alcohol and illicit drug use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.199

24.

Gabriel

A. S.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Beal

D. J.

Scott

B. A.

Sonnentag

Trougakos

J. P.

Butts

M. M.

(2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22 (4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626

25.

Georganta

Montgomery

(2016). Exploring fun as a job resource: The enhancing and protecting role of a key modern workplace factor.International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 1, 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-016-0002-7

26.

Georganta

Montgomery

(2022). Workplace fun is not enough: The role of work engagement and trust. Cogent Psychology, 9(1), 2060603. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2060603

27.

Goldberg

L. R.

Johnson

J. A.

Eber

H. W.

Hogan

Ashton

M. C.

Cloninger

C. R.

Gough

H. G.

(2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

28.

Goldsmith

R. S.

Targino

M. C.

Fanciullo

G. J.

Martin

D. W.

Hartenbaum

N. P.

White

J. M.

Franklin

(2015). Medical marijuana in the workplace: Challenges and management options for occupational physicians. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57(5), 518-525. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000454

29.

Hathaway

A. D.

(1997). Marijuana and lifestyle: Exploring tolerable deviance. Deviant Behavior, 18(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1997.9968056

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

31.

Hoeben

E.M.

Meldrum

R.C.

Walker

D.A.

Young

J.T.

(2016). The role of peer delinquency and unstructured socializing in explaining delinquency and substance use: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.08.001

32.

Hogan

Gabrielsen

Luna

Grothaus

(2003). Substance abuse prevention: The intersection of science and practice. Pearson Education.

33.

Hollinger

R. C.

(2018). Working under the influence (WUI): Correlates of employees’ use of alcohol and other drugs. In Occupational Crime (pp. 385–400). Routledge.

34.

Isen

A. M.

Daubman

K. A.

Nowicki

G. P.

(1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122

35.

Karl

K. A.

Peluchette

J. V.

(2006). Does workplace fun buffer the impact of emotional exhaustion on job dissatisfaction?: A study of health care workers. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(2), 128–142.

36.

Karl

Peluchette

Hall

Harland

(2005). Attitudes toward workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501200201

37.

Karl

K. A.

Peluchette

Hall

L. M.

(2008). Give them something to smile about: A marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 20(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165360

38.

Karl

K. A.

Peluchette

J. V.

Harland

(2007). Is fun for everyone? Personality differences in health care providers’ attitudes toward fun. Journal of Human Health Services Administration, 29(4), 409–447.

39.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

40.

Kotov

Gamez

Schmidt

Watson

(2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327

41.

Liu

Wang

Bamberger

Shi

Bacharach

S. B.

(2015). The dark side of socialization: A longitudinal investigation of newcomer alcohol use. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0239

42.

Lundin

Paul

Christensen

(2002). Fish! A remarkable way to boost morale and improve results. Hyperion.

43.

Martin

J. K.

Kraft

J. M.

Roman

P. M.

(1994). Extent and impact of alcohol and drug use problems in the workplace: A review of empirical evidence. In Macdonald

Roman

P.M.

(Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems: Vol. II: Drug testing in the workplace (pp. 3–31). Plenum Press.

44.

McDowell

(2004). Fun at work: Scale development, confirmatory factor analysis, and links to organizational outcomes. San Diego, CA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University.

45.

Meldrum

R. C.

Clark

(2015). Adolescent virtual time spent socializing with peers, substance use, and delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 61(8), 1104–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128713492499

46.

Michel

J. W.

Tews

M. J.

Allen

D. G.

(2019). Fun in the workplace: A review and expanded theoretical perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 29(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.001

47.

Milliman

Ferguson

Trickett

Condemi

(1999). Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 221–333.

48.

Monahan

J. L.

Lannutti

P. J.

(2000). Alcohol as social lubricant: Alcohol myopia theory, social self-esteem, and social interaction. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/26.2.175

49.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Packard

J. S.

Manning

M. R.

(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618

50.

Murphy

(n.d.). How to retain employees: 20 practical takeaways from 8 case studies. https://snacknation.com/blog/how-to-retain-employees/

51.

Ong

A. D.

Bergeman

C. S.

Bisconti

T. L.

Wallace

K. A.

(2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730

52.

Palan

Schitter

(2018). Prolific. Ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004

53.

Peer

Rothschild

Gordon

Evernden

Damer

(2021). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research.Behavior Research Methods, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3

54.

Peluchette

Karl

K. A.

(2005). Attitudes toward incorporating fun into the health care workplace. The Health Care Manager, 24(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200507000-00011

55.

Riordan

(2013, July). We all need friends at work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/07/we-all-needfriends-at-work

56.

Steptoe

O’Donnell

Badrick

Kumari

Marmot

(2008). Neuroendocrine and inflammatory factors associated with positive affect in healthy men and women: The Whitehall II study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm252

57.

Sullivan

Edgar

McAndrew

(2019). The hidden costs of employee drinking: A quantitative analysis. Drug and Alcohol Review, 38(5), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12935

58.

Sunoo

B. P.

(1995). How fun flies at Southwest Airlines. Personnel Journal, 74(6), 62–73.

59.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Allen

D. G.

(2014). Fun and friends: The impact of workplace fun and constituent attachment on turnover in a hospitality context. Human Relations, 67(8), 923–946. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713508143

60.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Bartlett

(2012). The fundamental role of workplace fun in applicant attraction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518114318

61.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Noe

R. A.

(2017). Does fun promote learning? The relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.006

62.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Stafford

(2013). Does fun pay? The impact of workplace fun on employee turnover and performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(4), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513505355

63.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Drost

(2015). Workplace fun matters … but what else? Employee Relations, 37(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2013-0152

64.

Tews

M. J.

Stafford

Jolly

P. M.

(2019). The dark side? Fun in the workplace and unwanted sexual attention. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 41(6), 1162–1182. DOI: 10.1108/ER-06-2018-0165

65.

Tugade

M. M.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Feldman Barrett

(2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1161–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00294.x

66.

Wiesner

Windle

Freeman

(2005). Work stress, substance use, and depression among young adult workers: An examination of main and moderator effect model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.83